Don Alhambra

I don't often venture into the dark, dusty vaults of BC&H, but I need some help.

A guy I work with and I are having an email debate on Christianity, and I thought it best to start off by establishing the existence of Jesus. As we carry on, we're going to assume he existed but I think it would be a good starting point to cast doubt on that!

So, he's opened by giving me evidence from the NT along with accounts from Josephus, Tacitus, Seurontius (I think he means Suetonius), the Talmud and the Koran. I can get evidence for the non-Biblical sources myself, but I'm pretty hopeless with the gospels stuff. Here's what he says about them:

What I'm looking for are reasons to doubt these accounts as factual. I'm sure you good people can assist.

jjramsey

Sigh. There are plenty of threads on that subject in BC&H. One of the shorter but more interesting ones is Paul and his older contemporary, Jesus, since it has somewhat of a new angle on it. It is probably also useful to show that the existence of Jesus is a not-so wonderful starting point. Speaking as neutrally as I can on the subject , a big problem is you will have to explain away prima facie evidence of historicity. For example, on another thread, I wrote:

I think you can tell that I have a pretty low opinion of the Jesus-myth stuff, but my point is that you will get into a debate on which your opponent has reasonable grounds to stand, it will get long and meandering, he won't be convinced, and your credibility in further arguments may be reduced. IMHO, you'd have better luck on the issues where you see coverage in both atheistic critique and mainstream biblical scholarship: the Lukan census, geography problems such as those in the account of the Gerasene demoniac, Jesus making a wrong prediction about the end of the world coming soon. These are matters that can't be so easily written off as atheist canards.

Julian

As you can see above, jjramsey is in favor of a historical Jesus. Others here are not. The plain fact is that his existence or non-existence cannot be nailed down to the point where agreement can be reached on the issue. That, in itself, should at least show that anyone who claim that his existence is solid and proven is mistaken. The same goes for the other side of the argument. Beyond that, nothing definite can be said. Don't let a christian bully you into a position of accepting his historicity, however, in the interest of continued debate it is okay to agree to disagree on the topic so that conversation can continue.

The BC&H mods are currently working on a historical Jesus reference list but it is not done yet so in the meantime I suggest that you use the search feature as all the things you bring up have been discussed here at great length.

To make a long story short, we have no contemporary references to Jesus outside the bible. The bible cannot used as evidence for itself, obviously. Josephus is completely or partially a forgery. Tacitus and Suetonius have problems as well. Like I said, do a search here.

Julian

jjramsey

That makes as much sense as saying that if there are big debates on evolution on a Christian board, then evolution isn't a settled issue. Let's face it, "Jesus is a myth" is a traditional belief in the circles of organized atheism. That it is traditional does not mean that it became a tradition for good reasons. Judging from what I've seen here, it hasn't. It doesn't even make much sense to argue that mainstream biblical scholars marginalize the Jesus-myth stuff because they are afraid of it, since non-belief in the Resurrection is hardly marginalized. The idea that Moses is mythical isn't even marginalized.

We don't have contemporary evidence for a lot of things in the first century.

Depends what you mean. The Bible is an anthology, and if you are trying to say that one work in an anthology cannot be used as supporting evidence of another work in that anthology, you are on shakier ground. For example, it is probative that the gospel of Matthew claims that "the prophets" predicted that Jesus would be a Nazarene, but the OT lacks a reference to Nazareth or Nazarenes.

There is plenty of evidence that the TF may be at least a partial forgery, and there are good reasons to doubt it altogether. The reasons for doubting the shorter reference to "brother of Jesus called Christ" reference are far more tenuous.

Julian

You cannot compare evolution and mythicism. The mythicists are presenting a case based on evidence, or silence in some cases, whereas creationists (and their sly brethren, the intelligent design proponents) are just plain ignorant.

Mythicism is not a traditional atheistic belief in my experience. The mythicists are rather loud, though, and that may account for your perception. Or I could be wrong. I, myself, am an agnostic on the issue. I, honestly, do not care one way or another as I think the issue immaterial to the evolution of early christianity. I do believe the question of Jesus' historicity is valid and not nearly as settled as you would have it.
So what? One must weigh the nature of the claim against the quality of the available evidence. Paring Jesus down to his bare minimum the required evidence becomes less, to be sure, but I am not so sure that we can even prove that. Like I said, I am a disinterested agnostic here.
I was referring to the historicity of Jesus in this case and the accuracy and reliability of the bible to provide us with evidence. It cannot, because of its very nature, do so. One frequently sees christians saying that Jesus fulfilled many prophecies. They find the dubious prophecies in the OT and then point to the NT for their completion. That sort of approach obviously will not do for evidence. Given the biased and tendentious nature of the book which contains forgery after forgery clearly shows us that it cannot be used for any purposes of providing evidence for much else other than the bare fact of its existence.
I agree. While the arguments for forgery of the shorter reference are tenuous, the claim that the short reference provides evidence for Jesus is equally tenuous.

My whole point of the first post was simply to state that one cannot categorically state with certainty that one viewpoint or the other has been firmly established. I stand by that opinion.

Julian

jjramsey

Creationists nominally base their arguments on evidence as well, but do not deal with the evidence properly. I see the same problems with mythicists. I see some mythicists be dishonest, like Acharya S or Freke & Gandy. In some cases, they ignore convergence of evidence. In some cases, I see them have a fixed scheme that they have latched onto, and everything is kinked and pressed and stretched to fit.

It's traditional enough to be a staple of atheist literature and to be a significant presence on websites like Internet Infidels, EvolveFish, Atheists.org, etc.

The "So what?" has to do with double standards. It seems rather absurd to demand contemporary evidence for Jesus' existence when this is not demanded for the existence of other personages.

On the other hand, I think we both agree that any accounting of Jesus' historicity has to explain why the contents of the New Testament are what they are, and in that sense, the NT is definitely evidence, even when it can't necessarily be taken at face value.

Chris Weimer

The worse thing you can debate concerning the validity of Christianity is the mere existence of Christianity. However, this guy is making himself look like a fool. Everything he said is easily destroyable, and I too think that there were an historical Jesus.

You should first start off with stating: "Where's the evidence?"

Ben C Smith

Correct. Evolution has a tremendous claim to being true, while mythicism has little or none. (Yes, I know what you meant, Julian. Have a nice day.)

Ben.

mens_sana

After granting that mythical and propagation-of-the-faith elements suffuse the Gospels, I think a core historicity has been established by J.D. Crossan's Jesus Sayings methodology.

I've yet to see a mythicist explain away this collection of multiply attested sayings from sources independent of each other and dating mostly from the first hundred years after Jesus' death. (That not everyone agrees on Crossan's dating does not destroy the collection.) And I supplement Crossan's barebones out-of-context sayings with the historical criteria used by Bart Ehrman and Paula Fredriksen. :angel:

Iasion

Greetings Don,

As others have noted, this is a well covered topic around here.

Regarding his comments on the NT -

Firstly - these accounts are hardly "separate".
The first account of Jesus' life is in G.Mark, the other Gospels were based on that - the synoptics obviously so, with G.John arguably so, (and telling a rather different story.)

Secondly - the earliest NT writings are hardly accounts of Jesus life.
Paul says nothing of the life of Jesus - no dates, places, names, speeches, healings, teachings, miracles etc. He describes the crucifixion and resurrection as spiritual concepts.

Consider the letter of James - supposedly by his actual BROTHER, yet there is nothing about the life of Jesus in there either (more details later.)

Peter and Jude and John - nothing here about the life of Jesus - no dates, places, names, speeches, healings, teachings, miracles etc.

Thirdly - the NT was not all written in 1st century.
Some of the letters may have been as late as even 150.

G.Mark is only dated to c.60 by apologists - scholars would say 65-80. It was probably written in Rome by someone who knew little about the Jews or the region.

The other Gospels were based on G.Mark with various changes to suit their beliefs - hardly the sign of eye-witnesses.

G.John and Revelation were the last to be accepted into canon, various early Christians rejected them.

Modern NT scholars take the view that NOT ONE SINGLE book of the NT was written by anyone who met any Jesus.

Iasion